CT - Michael Skakel & the murder of Martha Moxley, Greenwich, 1975 *Not Guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Wasn't there semen connected through DNA to Michael at the crime scene?
In the tree above where the body was found or something.....Been a long time since I read Fuhrman's book...did reread the Vanity Fair piece by Dominick Dunne.
Has Fuhrman made any comments at all since this retrial business came out?
 
at least according to this Fox story I googled up..
Prosecutors had to present a 27-year-old case with no eyewitnesses and little forensic evidence. They withdrew a request for blood and hair samples from Skakel before trial, scuttling the possibility of arguing there was a DNA link between Skakel and Moxley.
Renowned forensics expert Henry Lee also testified that he found no direct evidence linking Skakel to the killing through DNA taken from semen, blood or material found under Moxley's fingernails.
Now I'm thinking I read somewhere that Michael thought he might be linked by DNA evidence....I don't know.
 
There are all of these "ifs" in this case, but nothing to confirm that Michael was the actual perpetrator of this crime. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough in my opinion. Forensic evidence doesn't lie, DNA doesn't lie. My point is that if the DNA does not exclusively confirm that Michael Skakel committed this crime I still have reasonable doubt.
 
After the murder I think that the police were right in cornering both Tommy and Michael as the main suspects but I don't think they did a good enough job in finding out just what brother had more of a motive for this crime. I agree that either one of the brothers could have killed her as they both had strong motives. Michael had the motive of jealousy because according to statements he could have seen Martha and Tommy fooling around and killed her because he was jealous. That's a possibility. However, IMO, I have to say that Michael was pretty much aware that Martha and Tom had a thing and didn't really object to it. At least not from what I've read. I personally believe Tommy had the stronger motive because on that night Martha could have rejected him and he didn't like that. That seems more likely to me because she was last seen with Tommy, it was late at night, and he was kissing her (not confirmed but possibly). Whatever was happening between them, I think Tommy wanted more from Martha but she didn't. Maybe he tried to undress her and she refused (which would explain the trousers being pulled down but Martha not being sexually assaulted) and then out of rage that she rejected him he grabbed the nearest object-a golf club and killed her. OR the other possibility which I find the least likely is that both of the boys could have conspired together to murder her because she rejected both of them. There's obviously a lot of speculation here but to be honest I think it was for sure one of the Kennedy's. It has to be. Both of them changed their alibis numerous times, she was at their house that night, she was very close to both brothers, they lived next door, they had the strongest motives...the question is, which one killed her? Or did both kill her?
 
I for one think he's guilty as hell, and I wonder how much Skakel/Kennedy $$$$$ was slipped under the table to buy his new trial. JMO, MOO etc.
 
Snoods;9932850


No one is disputing it was the Skakel's clubs or that the rest of the set was inside the house. The point was that a random golf club taken outside, like any piece of sporting equipment, Bats, balls, bicycle, etc, could then be left in the yard by any one of the six boys, of varying ages, that lived in that house. Then anyone passing by could have grabbed it.

.

The only evidence that Micahel did it are the supposed "confessions" reported by a fellow alcoholic with a very questionable past. in fact the witness to this "confession" has since died of a heroin overdose.
Good way to get your 15 minutes of fame, accuse a famous name of confessing to an old, well known crime that just happens to be being re-investigated by a cop (Fuhrman) that has been proven, in a court of law, to be a liar. Personally if Mark Fuhrman told me it was raining I would have to step outside to confirm it. He is slime, IMO.



I certainly never said Bryant did it. He is a witness, nothing more, and no one that I am aware of, has accused him of this crime.

I don't know who did it. I don't know if it was Bryant's friends, as he states, the Tutor, Michael or Tommy. But that is exactly the point, IMO. There is really no more or less evidence for any of them. Which is reasonable doubt.

Michael may have done it. But we don't put people in jail for life based on a maybe. At least we are not supposed to.

I am agreeing with you, chlban. I said in my last post IMO there IS reasonable doubt that Michael didn't do it. I feel I have offended you? If so, I apologize. :seeya:

I do believe that one of the brothers did it, but of course that is my opinion only!
 
After the murder I think that the police were right in cornering both Tommy and Michael as the main suspects but I don't think they did a good enough job in finding out just what brother had more of a motive for this crime. I agree that either one of the brothers could have killed her as they both had strong motives. Michael had the motive of jealousy because according to statements he could have seen Martha and Tommy fooling around and killed her because he was jealous. That's a possibility. However, IMO, I have to say that Michael was pretty much aware that Martha and Tom had a thing and didn't really object to it. At least not from what I've read. I personally believe Tommy had the stronger motive because on that night Martha could have rejected him and he didn't like that. That seems more likely to me because she was last seen with Tommy, it was late at night, and he was kissing her (not confirmed but possibly). Whatever was happening between them, I think Tommy wanted more from Martha but she didn't. Maybe he tried to undress her and she refused (which would explain the trousers being pulled down but Martha not being sexually assaulted) and then out of rage that she rejected him he grabbed the nearest object-a golf club and killed her. OR the other possibility which I find the least likely is that both of the boys could have conspired together to murder her because she rejected both of them. There's obviously a lot of speculation here but to be honest I think it was for sure one of the Kennedy's. It has to be. Both of them changed their alibis numerous times, she was at their house that night, she was very close to both brothers, they lived next door, they had the strongest motives...the question is, which one killed her? Or did both kill her?

I agree with just about everything you said :blowkiss: ! Get out of my head!
 
at least according to this Fox story I googled up..
Prosecutors had to present a 27-year-old case with no eyewitnesses and little forensic evidence. They withdrew a request for blood and hair samples from Skakel before trial, scuttling the possibility of arguing there was a DNA link between Skakel and Moxley.
Renowned forensics expert Henry Lee also testified that he found no direct evidence linking Skakel to the killing through DNA taken from semen, blood or material found under Moxley's fingernails.
Now I'm thinking I read somewhere that Michael thought he might be linked by DNA evidence....I don't know.

Do you have a link to that story? That sounds like it has a lot of good info, I'd love to read it!
 
Alyssa2013;9935305
There are all of these "ifs" in this case, but nothing to confirm that Michael was the actual perpetrator of this crime. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough in my opinion. Forensic evidence doesn't lie, DNA doesn't lie. My point is that if the DNA does not exclusively confirm that Michael Skakel committed this crime I still have reasonable doubt
.

I don't agree that Forensic evidence is required to determine guilt. I beleive that cases can and should be tried on enough circumstantial evidence.

I just don't beileve that the circumstantial evidence in this case points, absolutely, to Michael.

It could be Michael. But it just as easily could be Tommy or the Tutor or the 2 friends of Kobe's cousin. So if the circumstantial evidence points to the possibility of at least four people, then, IMO, none of those four should have been convicted, unless there is something much stronger to back it up. There isn't in this case.
 
Ugh.. what awful news. Poor Mrs. Moxley and John Moxley. I have faith in Frank Garr that he won't let Michael get away with it. I also have faith in Len Levitt. Some have called him Garr's "partner" in this case. I have faith Len will write the truth. I thought his book Conviction was the best and most accurate and truthful on the Martha Moxley case.

Is Manny Margolies still Tommy's lawyer? Rumer going around Michael's original trial was that Manny wouldn't let Mickey Sherman bring up Tommy as a suspect in Michael's defense.

I wonder what the defense is going to do this time around? Go after Tommy, the alledged black teenagers that were in belle haven? (yeah right!), Ken Littleton, or someone else?

I do think the only chance Michael has is to confuse the jury by blaming Tommy.
 
I agree with everything you all have said. There's still doubt there. I'm still wondering about the time frame. Most people said that they last saw Tommy and Martha around 9:30 and Martha was killed around 10:00 that night. What happened in that time frame?! To me the position of Martha's body suggests that she was walking home from the Kennedy house and was attacked there (at the end of her driveway), possibly from behind. Was someone following her after she left? And who? So many questions, and it's true, not enough exactly to put the blame on someone explicitly...just a lot of suspicion, and in particular, around Tommy and Michael.
 
After the murder I think that the police were right in cornering both Tommy and Michael as the main suspects but I don't think they did a good enough job in finding out just what brother had more of a motive for this crime. I agree that either one of the brothers could have killed her as they both had strong motives. Michael had the motive of jealousy because according to statements he could have seen Martha and Tommy fooling around and killed her because he was jealous. That's a possibility. However, IMO, I have to say that Michael was pretty much aware that Martha and Tom had a thing and didn't really object to it. At least not from what I've read. I personally believe Tommy had the stronger motive because on that night Martha could have rejected him and he didn't like that. That seems more likely to me because she was last seen with Tommy, it was late at night, and he was kissing her (not confirmed but possibly). Whatever was happening between them, I think Tommy wanted more from Martha but she didn't. Maybe he tried to undress her and she refused (which would explain the trousers being pulled down but Martha not being sexually assaulted) and then out of rage that she rejected him he grabbed the nearest object-a golf club and killed her. OR the other possibility which I find the least likely is that both of the boys could have conspired together to murder her because she rejected both of them. There's obviously a lot of speculation here but to be honest I think it was for sure one of the Kennedy's. It has to be. Both of them changed their alibis numerous times, she was at their house that night, she was very close to both brothers, they lived next door, they had the strongest motives...the question is, which one killed her? Or did both kill her?

You beat me to this question! I really think that it was one or the other Skakel brother or (maybe) both. I am having a little trouble with the notion that Tony Bryant is holding the key to her killer. He waited until a couple of days after the conviction to say something, leading me to believe that he was encouraged (paid) to make this claim once Michael was convicted. And how did he and his two friends from the Bronx get into Belle Haven? This is a gated community-you can't just walk on in there. Also, the claim has been made that there was all kinds of golf clubs and baseball bats all over the Skakel property, for easy access to anybody. But how would these boys, who wanted to get a girl "caveman-style", know that there'd be a handy weapon to use, and Martha conveniently waiting for them outside?
 
You beat me to this question! I really think that it was one or the other Skakel brother or (maybe) both. I am having a little trouble with the notion that Tony Bryant is holding the key to her killer. He waited until a couple of days after the conviction to say something, leading me to believe that he was encouraged (paid) to make this claim once Michael was convicted. And how did he and his two friends from the Bronx get into Belle Haven? This is a gated community-you can't just walk on in there. Also, the claim has been made that there was all kinds of golf clubs and baseball bats all over the Skakel property, for easy access to anybody. But how would these boys, who wanted to get a girl "caveman-style", know that there'd be a handy weapon to use, and Martha conveniently waiting for them outside?

Exactly my theory. The golf club, IMO, is the biggest clue here. Sure, tutors and others who lived around the property would have access, but I believe the most likely possibility is that one of the Skakels did it. But I have to say...I would be absolutely irate if Michael was released only to find out that he really did kill her. Wish the DNA could confirm who committed this crime.
 
Exactly my theory. The golf club, IMO, is the biggest clue here. Sure, tutors and others who lived around the property would have access, but I believe the most likely possibility is that one of the Skakels did it. But I have to say...I would be absolutely irate if Michael was released only to find out that he really did kill her. Wish the DNA could confirm who committed this crime.

I don't think we will ever know absolutely that Michael did it-but he and Tommy were adversaries, and if Martha "liked" Tommy, and not Michael, then I could really understand why he might do it. The argument was made for Tommy doing it because he wasn't getting what he wanted from Martha, but she had been flirting with him (and not Michael)-believing Michael did it makes mote sense, because it sounds like she was rebuffing him in a way that she wasn't with Tommy. Having said that, it doesn't constitute proof, but I still think a circumstantial case can be made for Michael's guilt. But will the case be made this time? I don't think it will-and he will go free.
 
Alyssa2013;9935483
After the murder I think that the police were right in cornering both Tommy and Michael as the main suspects but I don't think they did a good enough job in finding out just what brother had more of a motive for this crime. I agree that either one of the brothers could have killed her as they both had strong motives. Michael had the motive of jealousy because according to statements he could have seen Martha and Tommy fooling around and killed her because he was jealous. That's a possibility. However, IMO, I have to say that Michael was pretty much aware that Martha and Tom had a thing and didn't really object to it. At least not from what I've read. I personally believe Tommy had the stronger motive because on that night Martha could have rejected him and he didn't like that. That seems more likely to me because she was last seen with Tommy, it was late at night, and he was kissing her (not confirmed but possibly). Whatever was happening between them, I think Tommy wanted more from Martha but she didn't. Maybe he tried to undress her and she refused (which would explain the trousers being pulled down but Martha not being sexually assaulted) and then out of rage that she rejected him he grabbed the nearest object-a golf club and killed her. OR the other possibility which I find the least likely is that both of the boys could have conspired together to murder her because she rejected both of them. There's obviously a lot of speculation here but to be honest I think it was for sure one of the Kennedy's. It has to be. Both of them changed their alibis numerous times, she was at their house that night, she was very close to both brothers, they lived next door, they had the strongest motives...the question is, which one killed her? Or did both kill her?

Really, which Kennedys do you think were involved? Because I wasn't aware that an Kennedy's had ever been impicated in any way.
There were two Skakel's potentially involved, but no Kennedy's as far as I know.

Of course, had the Skakel's not been Bobby Kennedy's nephews by marriage only I doubt Michael would have ever been convicted in a case with so much reasonable doubt.
 
Yes. Skakels not Kennedys..

I believe that Michael did it. I believe that this will be reversed when the higher court reviews the ruling by this judge that ordered the new trial.
 
Yes. Skakels not Kennedys..

I believe that Michael did it. I believe that this will be reversed when the higher court reviews the ruling by this judge that ordered the new trial.

I think Michael is responsible, too-and I realize that a "feeling" isn't proof, but I do have a feeling that once he is out, he's served his last day. The waters are too muddied with RFK jr's contention of Tony Bryant's friends involvement, etc. Have the friends of Tony Bryant ever been named, does anyone know?
 
I think Michael is responsible, too-and I realize that a "feeling" isn't proof, but I do have a feeling that once he is out, he's served his last day. The waters are too muddied with RFK jr's contention of Tony Bryant's friends involvement, etc. Have the friends of Tony Bryant ever been named, does anyone know?

I Think they proved it well in the trial. I think this judge is way out of bounds and will be overturned.. If not, I think he may get bail but I think they will retry him asap.
 
Alyssa2013;9935483


Really, which Kennedys do you think were involved? Because I wasn't aware that an Kennedy's had ever been impicated in any way.
There were two Skakel's potentially involved, but no Kennedy's as far as I kinow.

Of course, had the Skakel's not been Bobby Kennedy's nephews by marriage only though, I doubt Michael would have ever been convicted ina case with so much reasonable doubt.

I apologize. I don't know why I've been saying Kennedys.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
272
Guests online
612
Total visitors
884

Forum statistics

Threads
608,397
Messages
18,239,007
Members
234,368
Latest member
Cholabhagat
Back
Top